Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by sigma:

Tell me where I said Saddam didn't have these weapons?

Come on. You've exhibited poor reading comprehension in the past, but damn man, I only wrote 3 sentences. Certainly that's not hard to follow.


Hey sigma, follow this logic... You are an A$shole. There, was that even simple enough for you?



Still didn't answer my question.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by sigma:

Hatred of Bush?
Get off your high horse. I voted for him as Governor, as President, and right now am 50/50 on November.


Get off yours! I included not only you but "there will be some people in this country..." Now even you can see that I was NOT only referring to you when I said that...



There you go again displaying that poor comprehension.

I never said you were referring to only me. But you were referring to me. Did I ever say that no one hated Bush? No. I said that I didn't hate Bush, which is what your claim was.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by sigma:
I was simply presenting what some people thought. It's called learning. I can sit here and effectively argue circles around you all day from any side of any point of any topic. Did I ever say that was my opinion?


Now where in the definition of learning does spitting out other peoples opinions come into play???



I was correcting you.

If you hadn't been incorrect in your vast generalization of Liberals, I wouldn't have had to do that.

Quote:


You mearly think that you can argue circles around me, because you think that you know everything about everything! You are a pompous son of a b|tch if I have ever seen one...



I think because I have. Time and time again. Granted, you have made some very good points and sometimes corrected me in the past -- but this is not one of them.

Think that I know everything about everything? Not at all. JaTo regularly run circles around me, and I enjoy the debate.


Quote:

LOLOL. Your word twisting never ceases to amaze me sigma! I guess you do have one up on me, word twisting. Okay, here we go...
1)JATO has provided that proof for me...

2)Prove it was Saddam's. Well, I can't do that until we dust for fingerprints and find that Saddam's prints are on every shell casing, test tube, involved...

As for the rest of the things you want me to prove, I can't do that for you.



My use of "you" was a euphemism. As in the correct way that proving something should occur. Not simply reactionary thinking.

Quote:

And also as far as your other questions it shows very clearly how you are stretching to find a way to disprove the WMD thing. Your pulling a Clinton, what is the meaning of 'is' with your 'logic'



Learn to read, man!

I don't want to disprove it at all. I want it to be proven. Finding a shell is not the slightest bit of proof for all the reasons I mentioned above. An assumption that he has them is better proof than this!

Quote:


My logic works like this:
-We know that Saddam was using chemical or biological agents to kill 300,000+ people
-CIA and Brittish agencies have confirmed this
-Saddam has repeatedly disobeyed UN orders to allow inspectors unrestricted access to sites suspected of holding or creating WMD's
-We now have found 2 shells with toxic agents in them



And it's horrible logic.

Just because you find some shells doesn't mean they were his. There are tons of CBNs all around the US held by the scariest people in the entire world. It doesn't mean the US created or even condones them. It just doesn't know about them. This shell doesn't mean a damn thing unless you can prove that Saddam knew about it.

The case to enter Iraq was not that terrorist groups were creating WMDs without Saddam's consent. The case was that Saddam was creating this WMDs. This does absolutely nothing to prove that case. It's one more thing to add to the assumption list, but it is nowhere near Proof. The trailers that we found were much closer to proof than this.

Brush up on the basic element of law -- The Burden of Proof.

There is a burden of proof here, and I'll give you a hint, it's not on proving that these weren't created by Saddam's government.

Quote:

Originally posted by sigma:
It's calling thinking. Using your head and logic rather than 100% reactionary thinking. I tend to think things through before making blind reactions based on what I want to be true.



Again, your head is too large for your body, I think you might tip over if your not careful... As much as you like to think I am stupid, I do think about things before I come to a decision. When I state my opinions they are just that, opinions, which you are more than welcome to disagree with. But when eveidence such as what has been found today, and what has been shown since we first went into Iraq, is provided, you still want to try to make me look stupid by asking assinine questions like how do I know that it was Saddams? All that does is show that you (and I am assuming that you didn't believe the weapons wer real) don't have a leg to stand on anymore. -Nick





Asinine questions?!

You think that having to prove that these weapons were indeed created under the Hussein government is asinine?

What kind of fascist are you?

All my thinking shows is that despite what has occured to our nation, I still want to uphold the basic tenets that millions of American men and women have fought and died for.

2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX Webpage 2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX